Kerala High Court
Sheela P.B vs The Kerala State Co-Operative Bank on 21 June, 2024
Author: N.Nagaresh
Bench: N.Nagaresh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH
FRIDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF JUNE 2024 / 31ST JYAISHTA, 1946
WP(C) NO. 22217 OF 2024
PETITIONERS:
1 SHEELA P.B
AGED 50 YEARS, W/O VENUGOPALAN,
THOZHIYOOR HOUSE, THOZHIYOOR P.O,
POOKKODU VILLAGE, CHAVAKKAD TALUK,
TRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680 520.
2 VENUGOPALAN
AGED 67 YEARS, S/O KUNJAPPU,
THOZHIYOOR HOUSE, THOZHIYOOR P.O,
POOKKODU VILLAGE, CHAVAKKAD TALUK,
TRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680 520.
BY ADVS.
TISSY ROSE K CHERIYAN
AMRUTHA SELVARAJ
ASHIKA JOSHY
SHABNA.N
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK
(OLD NAME- TRISSUR DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK)
LTD, NO. 60, GURUVAYOOR BRANCH.
SAHAKARANA SADHABHI MANDIRAM,
KOVILAKATHUMPADAM, THIRUVAMBADI,
THRISSUR DISTRICT,
REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER,
PIN - 680 022.
2 THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER
THE KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK,
(OLD NAME- TRISSUR DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK)
LTD, NO. 60, GURUVAYOOR BRANCH.
SAHAKARANA SADHABHI MANDIRAM,
KOVILAKATHUMPADAM, THIRUVAMBADI,
TRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680 022.
W.P.(C) No.22217 of 2024
:2:
BY ADV
P.C.SASIDHARAN
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 21.06.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C) No.22217 of 2024
:3:
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 21st day of June, 2024
The petitioners have approached this Court
aggrieved by the coercive proceedings for recovery of
financial advance made by the Kerala State Co-operative
Bank to the petitioners, invoking the provisions of the
Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and
Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002.
2. The Bank paid ₹27 lakhs to the petitioners as
Simple Loan in the year 2016. The petitioners state that
though the petitioners made remittances promptly during the
initial repayment period of the financial advance, they could
not pay the repayment instalments promptly later. The
repayment of loan fell into arrears later due to Covid-19
pandemic. It happened due to reasons beyond the control of
the petitioners.
3. Though the petitioners requested the Bank to
permit the petitioners to repay the overdue amounts in easy
monthly instalments, the Bank authorities were not yielding.
The authorities, instead, started coercive proceedings,
invoking the provisions of the Securitisation and
Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of
Security Interest Act, 2002 and the Security Interest
(Enforcement) Rules, 2002.
4. The petitioners state that they are still in a position
to clear the overdue amounts towards the loan, if sufficient
time is given to clear the dues in easy monthly instalments. If
the respondents are permitted to continue with the coercive
proceedings and auction the secured assets provided by the
petitioners, they will be put to untold hardship and loss.
5. Standing Counsel entered appearance on behalf
of the Bank and denied all the statements made by the
petitioners. On behalf of the respondents, it is submitted that
the loan was given to the petitioners in the year 2016. The
petitioners committed default in repaying the loan.
6. The Bank repeatedly reminded the petitioners and
required them to clear the dues. The petitioners deliberately
omitted to do so. In the circumstances, the Bank had no
other go, than to proceed against the petitioners invoking,
the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of
Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act,
2002. The petitioners have not advanced any legal reasons
to thwart the coercive proceedings initiated by the Bank.
7. The Standing Counsel, however, submitted that if
the petitioners are ready and willing to make a substantial
payment soon and remit the balance overdue amount
immediately thereafter, a short breathing time can be granted
to the petitioners to clear the dues. The Standing Counsel
submitted that the outstanding amount due to the Bank from
the petitioners is ₹35,17,620/- and the overdue amount as on
21.06.2024 is ₹18,67,061/-.
8. I have heard the learned Counsel for the
petitioners and the learned Standing Counsel representing
the Bank.
9. The specific case of the petitioners is that the
petitioners have been making the repayment and maintaining
the loan account initially. The default in repaymentof the loan
account occurred lately due to reasons beyond the control of
the petitioners. The petitioners have provided substantial
security which will safeguard the interest of the Bank.
10. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I am
inclined to dispose of the writ petition giving a short and
reasonable time to the petitioners to clear off the liability.
11. The writ petition is therefore disposed of with the
following directions:
(i) The petitioners shall remit the overdue
amount of ₹18,67,061/- in 10 equal and
consecutive monthly instalments along with
accruing interest and other Bank charges, if
any. First of such instalments shall be paid
on or before 22.07.2024.
(ii) If the petitioners commit single default
in making payments as directed above, the
respondents will be at liberty to continue
with coercive proceedings against the
petitioners in accordance with law.
(iii) The petitioners shall also pay current
EMIs along with the aforesaid payments.
(iv) If the petitioners pay the instalments
as directed above, any coercive
proceedings against the petitioners shall
stand deferred.
(v) In the meanwhile, the petitioners may
approach the Bank for private sale without
violating the payment schedule as directed
above.
Sd/-
N. NAGARESH
JUDGE
AMR
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 22217/2024
PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGEMENT DATED
30.03.2023 IN W.P(C) NO. 10804/2023.
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE LOAN ACCOUNT
STATEMENT.
